Toward a New Paradigm forHumanitarian Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current debate over humanitarian intervention is characterized by the twofold tension between the UN Charter restrictions on the use of force and more permissive customary norms, on the one hand, and competing claims of national sovereignty and human rights protection, on the other. This paper proposes a new paradigm for humanitarian intervention that builds upon the concept of the "Responsibility to Protect" articulated by the Canadian inspired International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, and recommends the extension of this principle to a multidimensional strategy for codifying humanitarian intervention in international law. At the heart of this codification proposal is a call for Canada to employ its diplomatic expertise to facilitate the negotiation of an International Convention on the Right and Responsibility of Humanitarian Intervention that would move the international community a considerable distance toward harmonizing international humanitarian law and the UN Charter system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".